Skip to main content

If I want to get into a good college, I need good SAT/ACT scores to show; if I want to apply for a job, I need a crisp resume; if I want to volunteer in my kids school, I need to fill forms, provide TB test results, fingerprint; I can go on...but, if I am standing for a public office - what do I need to tell the voters...nothing is particular. I can paint whatever picture I want, depending on how much is there in my pocket or how much I can raise.

Right now both the parties are spending millions, yet, the information that is truly relevant to us, is not there. It is one candidate's words against another. Most of us are analytical, we like to see past data, comparisons in order to make informed decisions.

Will it be too hard to achieve - a form of some sorts (e.g https://docs.google.com/...) that ALL the applicants to public office that are standing in an election fill and make it public. Constituents come up with this forms depending on the district/issues etc.

It seems pretty straight forward thing to do to me. So, tired of non stop blah blah going on from both sides. Those of you who are good at politics, can you please make this happen?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess it's about the same to (4+ / 0-)

    be a parent...sad, isn't it?  I had to prove more to buy a rescue dog than to take home my babies. I remember when my daughter was born and we left the hospital, I thought
    to myself, OMG, you really trust me?  She's 34 and thriving but...who knew?

    "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." Winston Churchill

    by Catkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:17:24 PM PDT

  •  Believe me, I understand what you're saying (3+ / 0-)

    But, if there were requirements they would look a lot like the stuff that kept folks from voting for so many years-- right up until today.

    Show your birth certificate ? What if you are older, born at home, no certificate ever filed ? Like one of my good friend, who has, for years, done terrific volunteer work and arguably could/should have run for office at some point.

    Education ? Rmoney has a JD/MBA from Harvard, and he's still a horse's ass. (Apologies to the rear ends of horses.)

    Common sense ? How do you prove that ?

    Nope, I know what you mean, but how in the hell would it be set up in the real world ?

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:18:55 PM PDT

  •  it's that pesky Constitution (5+ / 0-)

    which sets the criteria.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:22:19 PM PDT

    •  Great answer. (0+ / 0-)

      I wrote two long comments when this diary posted and deleted them both because they got too involved. What I was trying to say, in multiple paragraphs , you just nailed in eight words.

      "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

      by sceptical observer on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:38:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Constitution can be changed. (0+ / 0-)

      So for the sake of argument, why would you change or not change the Constitution as it now stands?

      •  ok (0+ / 0-)

        principly because setting specific critiera for office would eliminate many good candidates and hinder citizen participation in government. It would end up favoring an elitist set of ruling class sycophants. The minimalist criteria of the Constitution is the only way all citizens are assured of participation

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:32:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Too much potential for abuse . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    We have minimal criteria in the Constitution -- effectively just an age requirement and requirement regarding birth status for the presidency.  This is about as general as you can get, leaving almost no room for subjective judgments about who or who shouldn't be able to run for office.  This could be a real mess too if there was some kind of board making subjective judgments about qualifications.  There are other countries who have boards who serve this function, but they don't tend to have very free elections (e.g. looking at a country like Iran, which prevents "unacceptable" candidates from running for office simply because they don't support the views of the current rulers).

    Part of the argument here is that the Framers probably figured that voters would serve as the best judge of qualifications.  The onus is on the voters to do their homework.  Technically the candidates do create a resume -- there are position papers, biographies and other details that are available on candidate websites, campaign ads, etc.  In the end the burden is on voters to do the equivalent of checking references and performing a background check to ensure that the candidates claims hold up to scrutiny.  We have some fact checkers who play this role right now, but ultimately the onus is on the voters.  If voters don't want to perform this function, there's not much that can be done.  It's possible to create tools which make it easier for voters to make judgments independent of the candidates, but the burden is still on voters, not the candidates.  Especially with the age of search engines and the like, I think there are tools available for voters to make informed judgments if they want to.  It probably helps to have some critical thinking abilities to sift through information, but once again, the onus is on voters, not candidates or some kind of candidate board to exercise judgment about qualifications.

    Check that: we do have some quasi-vetting boards.  Political parties are one for elective office.  Although their judgments can be overridden by grass roots organizing.  For judicial appointments at the federal level there are commissions of "experts" who stand in place of the more direct electoral system (e.g. indirect selection through elected officials).

    •  The founders were sooo 18th century (0+ / 0-)

      they didn't have things like resumes or SAT scores to go by. Illiteracy was huge, most people weren't educated at all.  Communication could taake weeks or months. "Factscheckers" were unknown then.

      Part of the argument here is that the Framers probably figured that voters would serve as the best judge of qualifications.  The onus is on the voters to do their homework.
      Yeah thats it. Let the buyer beware.

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:26:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In our country no matter how stupid or ignorant... (0+ / 0-)

    you are, no matter what it says on your resume or military discharge, you can still be president.
    George W Bush proved that

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:20:37 AM PDT

  •  Classes in Biology and Civics should be required (0+ / 0-)

    along with several other science courses and some geography to boot.....and passed before they are even allowed to run.....

  •  I'd be even more interested in term limits. (0+ / 0-)

    One term for senate, three for congressman, president as is.  These positions weren't intended as careers.  I know the argument against this - it takes at least a term to learn the job.  Congress would learn to work differently if they had time limits.  

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 05:48:28 AM PDT

  •  Local races are where most politicians start (0+ / 0-)

    I'm running for a county office, first time candidate, Democrat.  I have a varied background in manufacturing, local public service, and have served on boards in my city.

    My opponent is in a seat previously held by her husband, who holds state office.  They have done nothing but go along with their party for years, voting for tax breaks for the wealthy, and against public schools. Together they have 4 government pensions/salaries. Between them they have easily been elected to over 25 years in local office.

    I'm working like crazy to win this seat.  I've knocked on thousands of doors.  We need good candidates in the pipeline.

    Ny point is:  Find good candidates locally, (or become one) and try to build the farm team for the future we want.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site